JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya):

The respondent, Lie Seng Fatt, filed on 14 November 1987 a notice of motion in the High Court, Kuala Lumpur for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister of Labour contained in a letter dated 16 September 1987 (at p. 34 in appeal record) read in Bahasa Malaysia as follows:

Y.B. Menteri Buruh telah memutuskan di bawah s. 20(3) Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, bahawa perkara ini tidak menafaat dirujukkan ke Mahkamah Perusahaan.

(The Hon'ble Minister of Labour has determined under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 that this matter is not fit to be referred to the Industrial Court).

The statement pursuant to O. 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 in support of the notice of motion (at p. 12 in Appeal Record) gave three grounds for the relief sought namely:

(i) The Minister of Labour did not comply with the Rules of Natural Justice by not giving reasons for his refusal to refer the dispute.

(ii) The Minister of Labour purported to deal with the dispute when the Parliament entrusted the function to the Industrial Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

(iii) The Minister of Labour took into account matters which are outside that which he is empowered to do under s. 20(3) Industrial Relations Act 1967.

During the hearing before the learned Judge in the High Court the first ground was abandoned by Counsel - see p. 16 in appeal record. Thus only grounds (ii) and (iii) remained to be considered. The learned Judge granted the order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister.

Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) was extensively amended in 1989 but for the purpose of this case the relevant provisions of s. 20 of the Act read as follows:

20.(1) Where a workman who is not a member of a trade union of workmen considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer he may, within thirty days of the dismissal, make representations in writing to the director general to be reinstated in his former employment; the representations may be filed at the office of the director general nearest to the place of employment from which the workmen was dismissed.

(2) Upon receipt of the representations the director general shall take such steps as he may consider necessary or expedient so that an expeditious settlement thereof is arrived at; where the director general is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the representations being settled, he shall notify the Minister accordingly.

(3) Upon receiving the notification of the director general under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the representations to the Court for an award.

The crux of the matter here is the operation of the words "the Minister may, if he thinks fit refer the representations to the Court" in s. 20(3) of the Act.

What is the extent of the power of the Minister to refer or not to refer the representations to the Industrial Court. It would seem clear that a wide discretion is conferred on the Minister of Labour to refer or not to refer a dispute to the Industrial Court but is that discretion unfettered.

It would be useful to recapitulate at this stage on the undisputed background facts of the case. The respondent was employed by Koperasi Belia Bersatu Berhad, a company as a project engineer of the company on 28 November 1979. On 9 July 1980 he was appointed as the deputy general manager of Koperasi Belia Bersatu Berhad. On 15 April 1981 he was appointed as acting deputy general manager of Kin Kwok Daily News Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary of Koperasi Belia Bersatu Berhad. On 7 September 1982 he was appointed as general manager of Koperasi Belia Bersatu Berhad. By a letter dated 13 November 1986 his appointment as general manager of Koperasi Belia Bersatu Berhad was terminated and he was transferred back to Kin Kwok Daily News Sdn. Bhd. The respondent was dissatisfied with his change and as advised by his solicitors he lodged a complaint